Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Matthew Crabtree

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. I burned my fingers the last time I tried closing a debate with a number of suspected sock/meatpuppets so I have made a more thorough check this time around. The author of the article gets to be counted as a valid keep vote, although s/he should be advised to read the deletion policy and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine. The other keep votes come from the same IP and are most likely wither the same person, or friends, and such votes are disregarded; the "voting" system here is more about discussion, and one reason it is not a poll where all "votes" are equal is to avoid ballot stuffing. Against approximately 10 people wanting to delete, the consensus is clear. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Matthew Crabtree

Originally nominated by PJM as vanity. Completing AFD. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 22:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

  • maybe vanity is just a part of this "The Crabtree's" charm. I say give it a chance.
  • I am in favor that this entry stays. perhaps it began as vanity but due to the throught out re-edit I believe this shows there is some promise in it. It may be something we don't understand and we should give it a chance for it possibly having a cult following.
  • i think we need to keep this page becouse i belive it will grow larger and more usefull in time. once the fans of "the Crabtee" find it.
    • (preceding unsigned comment by 24.53.140.85 (talk · contribs) 20:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC))
  • Delete Vanity. You're never going to get famous by listing yourself on Wikipedia. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 22:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete blatant vanity - Forbsey 23:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete should have been speedied. "The Reyk"
  • Delete --MacRusgail 09:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Everyone should be given the chance to freely publicize themselves; I say that it should stay.(preceding unsigned comment by 66.144.47.131 (talk · contribs) )
    • Let it stay! We all need to have knowledge about "The Matthew Crabtree." Anyone that is willing to put themselfs on-line to be critized by the masses should be allowed to stay.(preceding unsigned comment by 66.144.47.131 (talk · contribs) )
  • STAY! It is not blatant vanity, just confidence.(preceding unsigned comment by 66.144.47.131 (talk · contribs) )
  • Delete Please...just imagine another 1,000 entries like this one; take it out.
  • are you questioning the power of wikipedia? this sites can handle things like this, and I don't see how this negativly or adversly affects anyone. I say let the knowledge be free. If you don't like the "Crabtree", leave him alone, but don't try to destroy him.(preceding unsigned comment by 66.144.47.131 (talk · contribs) )
  • Delete there are lots of other ways for people to promote themselves and friends...why should a Wikipedia article be one? Start a user page instead. PJM 12:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • it is not promotion, it is a simple archive of biographical imformation on an up-and-coming dynamo. How is this any more promotive than an article on Tom Cruise or Milli Vinilli?(preceding unsigned comment by 66.144.47.131 (talk · contribs) )
  • Yes it is blatant promotion, of a generally unknown individual. A 'Tom Cruise' already has mass interest, so it's silly to even compare.
  • so mass intrest is the criteria for an archive of accurate information? I think at least a fair level of local intrest is enough for an article. This "Crabtree" may be the next Tom Cruise and the fact he may not or never be is no reason to erase the archive of his work.

and besides, how about comparing him to Milli Vanilli? you haven't answered that one(preceding unsigned comment by 66.144.47.131 (talk · contribs) )

  • Well, Milli Villi are infamously known worldwide...so that's another bad comparison. Why not compare this Crabtree to my neighbor Bob? Bob's written several novels that will be published one day, and has a great singing voice (I can hear him when he showers in the morning). He should have an article here too. No?

If he has a authoring career that has a fair chance of coming to fruition, I think by all means you should write an article about him. I for one would read it.(preceding unsigned comment by 66.144.47.131 (talk · contribs) )

    • I'm from oak hill and i think that the crabtree's article should stay because it allows the public to learn about the importance of new artists in comedy,humor,and comics . Lewellen,Ray(preceding unsigned comment by 66.144.47.131 (talk · contribs) )
    • This is the crabtree i shall not be silenced. My work will be heard those who say that fame can not be attaind by the use of wikipedia they in saying this prove themselves wrong by the fact they are reading this .(preceding unsigned comment by 66.144.47.131 (talk · contribs) )
    • I feel that if your neighbor Bob is what you bill him as then he also should have his own article as well(preceding unsigned comment by 66.144.47.131 (talk · contribs) )
  • D clearcut vanity. Fawcett5 14:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable... borderline speedy as CSD:A7 because the "claims" of notability don't even qualify IMO. Oh, and sockpuppet threshold reached.--Isotope23 15:56, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
should mention most of the puppet votes are by the author of this article, 66.144.47.131 (talk · contribs).--Isotope23 16:04, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Meatpuppets -- that address is a proxy server for a bunch of Ohio public schools. — mendel ☎ 19:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Er, yeah... I meant meat... thanks for the correction mendel.--Isotope23 01:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The article should be kept on Wikipedia for the archiving of "The Matthew Crabtree"'s life, however it is written. Wikipedia is a great source for information and this is information. Many people will have a chance to see this article and the person's family and friends would be able to look at it later as a record to remember him by. The article should stay on the basis of its biographical and, in the future, nostalgic value. Gkf411

Isotope23 should know that the Crabtree can also do sock puppets very well,and i also love The Wombat. i don't think others can judge becouse thay do not know him or have never read the Gentlemen, its is truly one of the funnest thigs EVER! kept this and the overall site would be much better!!

for the information of those confused by the ID number of those numerous comments, several people we know do share a server together. though as most of the comments were by various friends and admirers of "The Crabtree", I suppose that is up to debate whether these admirers should be considered puppets or not. Nonetheless, for the record, only the comment that explicitly states as being by "The Crabtree" was actually written by him. The rest were different people operating on a connected server.

Again, as a longtime Wikipedian lurker, I offer my vote for the Crabtree as I see great things in his future. 24.53.141.174 19:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Brandywine

  • Delete nn bio. Look, if he has great things in his future, then he will deserve a great article in the future. But he doesn't deserve an article until he's done the great things. We would have said the same thing about Einstein if we'd been around before he'd started demonstrating his genius for the world to see. Haeleth 21:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I for one would have loved to have read an article about Einstein before his fame rose. I could say I was a fan from the beginning. Besides, potential needs to be recognized, not just demonstration of what it can do. This provides for a more creativly nurturing international environment. I would have felt quite the fool to write Einstein off before I can see what he can do. Also, with such interesting projects as his soon-to-come comic book and film-role, not to mention (as I've heard now) the rapidly developing and brain-storming comedy team the "Gentlemen", I think it would be beneficial to leave this page up. Give it a few months at least, I think, to give him a chance to complete his projects and put them into circulation. then we'll see if this Young Einstein will wow us with his prowess. 24.53.141.174 21:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Brandywine

I don't know this "crabtree" fellow, but I think this article should stay. It is interesting. It may have some real importance someday, who knows. i'l agree that "the crabtree" should stay, but what does that jimmy guy have to do with any thing? and why is there a link to see his bed room? thats worse that that guy up there hanging out around the guy next doors bath room while he sings? will one of you pro crabtree people tell me what thats all about.?!

  • Delete vanity --Rogerd 13:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • If "The Crabtree" stays the Jimmy stuff will most likely get removed. It seems irrelvent now, but originally it was going to have a page on Jimmy too. They're both into this "Gentlemen" project and from what I've heard that should be up and running in a couple of weeks and from what I know it sounds pretty funny. Sort of a "Stella" type of thing. If "The Crabtree"'s page is taken, it's doubtful "the Gentlemen", as a group or separatly, will have any further Wikipedia-listed info. I suppose then we'll have to wait for the Comedy Central Special in eight years (haha).

24.53.141.174 23:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Brandywine


This is a great article. Though I do not know this "The Matthew Crabtree", I admit I am intrigued and would like to see more. I say we give it more time to grow and see if anything interesting comes of it. {MHoO)

  • Mach, if you'll re-read this discussion you'll notice that it has already been mentioned numerous times that the "creator" here posted from a proxy server and cannot be responsible for the content posted by others using the same server.

24.53.141.174 21:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)Brandywine

  • I've checked the contributions of the proxy server, and I must say some of the things done on it were rather shameful acts of vandalism. I, on my own behalf (and on behalf of "the Crabtree" by his request) apologize for those acts of vandalism (though I say again they were more than likely not committed by those we know personally and therefor also not those involved in any way in "The Crabtree"'s page or this discussion.) Nonetheless, we apologize for whoever did it. Obviously idiots.

Further, "The Crabtree" (with myself in agreement) wishes it be known (he doesn't actually have home access to the internet and he's a bit reluctant to use that server now) that there should be no hard feelings if the majority votes out his article here. He and I both have great respect for the Wikipedia community and the accuracy and wonderful service it provides. "The Gentlemen" apparantly finish up their work this week and begin actual filming on the coming weekend. If this goes anywhere (as they have some real plans for it that may come into action at any time after the editing) I personally will try again a page for it if it has some degree of success or notoriaty at home or elsewhere. We can all have that one out in discussion when the time comes. Many thanks to the wonderful regulars here at Wikipedia who pledge their time and effort into keeping this place accurate and bountiful.

24.53.141.174 22:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)Brandywine-In Association with "The Matthew Crabtree"

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.